Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout670 HoffmanMr. Alan F. Hoffman 1190 Grouse Run Drive Bethel Park, PA 15102 Re: 87 -165 -C Dear Mr. Hoffman: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ORDER NO. 670 DATE DECIDE: August 18, 1988 DATE MAILED: September 13, 1988 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows:- I. Allegation: That you, a Bethel Park Councilman, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), in that you voted on a re- zoning request for John L. Andrew, an individual with whom you have a business relationship: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. Code 11 403(a). (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 2 A. Findings: contribution, reward, or promise of fciture employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. v403(b). You served as a member of Borough Council in Bethel Park, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. You served in this position from January 4, 1982. 2. John L. Andrew is President of Pittsburgh Realty, Incorporated, 5815 Library Road, Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. ��. ;r. Andrew was the owner of property on Lytle Road, Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. b. Mr. Andrew filed applications to have this property rezoned. 3. Minutes of the Bethel Park Council meeting indicate as fo�lo °v� regarding the instant situation. November 14, 1983 - the Lytle Road rezoning request was listed as item No. 22 on the agenda. ti) Motion by Mr. Hoffman, seconded by Mr. Trautman to set a public hearing on November 28, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., for the Lytle Road rezoning request frog R -2 to C -4. Motion carried unanimously. "ovember 28, 1983 - a public hearing was conducted regarding, in part, the Lytle Road rezoning request. i) One proponent for the rezoning request made a statement at this hearing indicating that the change to C -4 would be the best approach. :ii) Mr. Hoffman questioned the planner as to what uses were permitted in the C -4 categor - y. (iii)Seven individuals spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 3 (iv) No further action was taken at this hearing. c. December 12, 1983 - the Lytle Road rezoning request was listed as item No. 29 on the agenda. (i) Citizens comments indicate attorney Richard Rosenzweig addressed council concerning the requested rezoning on Lytle Road. He asked that the request not be granted. (ii) Motion by Mr. Hoffman, seconded by Mr. Trautman, to approve the ordinance for the Lytle Road rezoning request to transfer certain property from zoning classification R -2 to C -4. (This item required 2/3 majority vote of council to pass). Councilmen Hodsell, Hoffman, McGibbeny, Pape and Trautman voted aye. Councilmen Connell, Harrison and Treher voted no. Motion defeated 5 to 3 as 2/3 majority not reached. d. August 5, 1985 - a public hearing was held by the Council regarding the Borough Master Plan. (i) Part of the proposed Master Plan included a rezoning of property on Lytle Road from R -2 to C- 4. (ii) Various individuals commented on the rezoning of this property. (iii)Councilmember Harrison stated that he was against the proposed zoning classification change on Lytle Road and the parcel on Paxton Road. (iv) Councilmember Hoffman felt something had to be done to this area of Lytle road as it would be difficult to market it as single family residential. He stated he would support a change to a C -4 classification. (v) Mr. Hoffman commented on the need to up date the master plan document regarding statistical data. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 4 ��. October 14, 1985: Motion by Mr. Hatch, seconded by Mr. Connell to return the Master Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission with particular instructions to pay great deal of attention to four geographic locations Including Lytle Road. Messrs. Connell, Hatch, McGibbeny, Pape, and Trautman voted aye. Messrs. Harrison, Hoffman and Treher voted no. Motion carried by vote of 5 to 3. f. October 13, 1986 - the Andrew rezoning request was listed as item No. 19 on the agenda. (? Motion by Mr. Ruta, seconded by Mr. Pape to set a public hearing at 7:45 p.m., October 27, 1986 for the Andrew rezoning request to change zoning classification R -2 to C -4 application 1768. Motion carried unanimously. (You were present at this meeting). g. October 27, 1986 - a public hearing was held r7lgarding application 1768 - Andrew rezoning request. (1) Mr. Baker explained that the request involves a proposed change from R -2 to C -4 on Lytle Road adjacent to Hahns nursery. He briefly described the history of the actions on this property over the past several years. (ii) The attorney representing the appl presentation in support of the request (iii)Opponents to the request presented dated October 20, 1986 objecting to the (iv) Several individuals the request. November 10, 1986 - the listed as item No. 35 on 'i) Several individuals rezoning request. icant made a a petition rezoning. also spoke in opposition to Andrew rezoning request was the agenda. spoke in opposition to the Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 5 (ii) Mr. Ruta read a letter from John L. Andrew, dated November 4, 1986, in which Mr. Andrew requested a new hearing and a 60 to 90 day period before a final vote of Council takes place. (This letter is on file in the Municipal Manager's Office). Mr. Ruta requested that this item be removed from the agenda. (Andrew' Rezoning Request R -2 to C -4, said property being located on Lytle Road, Application 1768. Motion by Mr. Hoffman, seconded by Mr. McGibbeny, to offer an amendment to table the motion, in accordance with the request that came to Council. Messrs. Hatch, Hoffman, McGibbeny, Pape and Trautman voted Aye; Messrs. Clossin, Harrison and Ruta voted No. Motion Carried by vote of 5 to 3 to Table. (iii)Charles Strimlan, 5171 Priscilla Drive, spoke regarding the Andrew rezoning request stating that he felt Council was completely ignoring the 100 people on the petition against this rezoning. He stated that previously a gentleman had brought up that Mr. Hoffman works for Mr. Andrew and if this is a fact._ -- Mr. McGibbeny called for point of order. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged that he does, in fact, do accounting work for Mr. Andrew who is one of many clients. He commented that when this item first came up several years ago he supported the change to C -4 that was requested. At that time, he did not do work for Mr. Andrew and the fact that he now does work for him has not altered his opinion of the C -4 zoning. He further commented that Council had a ruling from the solicitor that this relationship would not constitute a conflict of interest. He stated that this issue came up before and an opinion was rendered in that respect, and added that a couple of months ago a similar situation arose where the solicitor had ruled likewise. He commented that he would also like to see sidewalks on at least one side of Lytle Road and a priority for future sidewalks in Mr. Alan F. Hof' sr• Page 6 that araa> e- further stated that presently 'coking at strengthening the regarding the C -4 category. (iv) A number of other individuals spoke in to the request. Council ord i na nceF opposition (v) Howard Engles, 5150 Priscilla Drive, stated ghat the municipal solicitor may have said there is nothing legally wrong with Mr. Hoffman voting on the Andrew Rezoning, but if he were in his position he could not vote with a clear conscience. He added that this is a moral Issue- - not just a legal one Mr. Harrison said he wondered what the Solicitor had to say, since there had been a lot of alluding to what he did say. Mr. Delle Donne said that Mr. Hoffman had mentioned two years ago and commented that Mr. Hoffman would have to remind him of that one since he couldn't recall it. He did, however, r member that he had given an opinion on an issue of a few months ago that involved a question concern'nc an accountant, but he couldn't recall ruing specifically on this situation. February 9, 1987 - the Andrew rezoning request . -s listed as item 26 -28 on the agenda. (i) Motion by Mr. Ruta, seconded by Mr. Pape, LO remove Application 1768, the Andrew Rezonf_r:- Request for Zoning Change from R -2 to . -4, fr'r the table. Mr.'Hatch read a letter from John F. Andrew, dates' February 2, 1987, requesting a further delay in his rezoning request. (Letter is on file in the Municipal Manager's Office). Discussion follower Motion by Mr. McGibbeny to permit this issue .uo remain on the table. Mr. McGibbeny's amending motion was overruled, based on the Solicitor's advice. M7 :LT . Hoffman Page 8 Motion by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, to amend the motion on the floor to include Mr. Pape, who has admitted to this Council that he has had dealings with Mr. Andrew and ask that any other councilman who has had financial dealings with Mr. Andrew make that fact known so that their name also can be included in this investigation. Mr. Hoffman commented that other Councilmen had dealings with Mr. Andrew and he requested that Mr. Harrison include in his motion to amend that anyone who had approached Mr. Andrew for any services, merchandise or free business, be part of the amending motion. Mr., Harrison agreed and Mr. Hoffman, as the seconder, also agreed. Mr. Clossin did not feel names should be included in the amendment and Mr. Harrison agreed. Mr. Hoffman, as seconder, agreed also. Motion by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Hoffman, that all councilmen who voted on that issue (Andrew' rezoning) be queried and anyone who indicates they have had financial _dealings before or after, or solicited service, goods, or whatever, should inform the solicitor of that fact. Messrs. Harrison and Hoffman voted Aye; Messrs. Clossin, McGibbeny, Ruta, Trautman and Wilson voted No Amending motion defeated 5 to 2. Mr. Pape absent. Messrs. Clossin, McGibbeny, Ruta, Trautman and Wilson voted Aye on the original motion; Messrs. Harrison and Hoffman voted No. Original motion carried by vote of 5 to 2. Mr. Pape absent. 4. The R -2 zoning classification is one family residential. 5. The C -4 zoning classification is office commercial. 6. Your vote was a deciding vote as a 2/3 majority was necessary to carry the rezoning charge ordinance. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 7 Vote on the motion to remove application 1768 from the table was carried 7 to 1. Messrs. Clossin, Harrison, Hatch, Hoffman, Pape, Ruta and Trautman voted Aye; Mr. McGibbeny voted No. (ii) Motion by Mr. Hatch, seconded by Mr. McGibbeny, that Application 1768 be returned to the table for an indefinite period. Messrs. Hatch and McGibbeny voted Aye; Messrs. Clossin, Harrison, Hoffman, Pape, Ruta and Trautman voted No. Motion defeated by vote of 6 to 2. (iii)Motion by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Pape, that the Andrew rezoning request, Application 1768, for zoning change from R -2 to C -4 be granted. Messrs. Hatch, Hoffman, McGibbeny, Pape, Ruta and Trautman voted Aye; Messrs. Clossin and Harrison voted No. Motion Passed by Vote of 6 to 2. Ordinance designated as No. 2- 9 -87 -A, by title as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BETHEL PARK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 12- 19 -66A, THE OFFICIAL MUNICIPALITY OF BETHEL PARK ZONING ORDINANCE, BY TRANSFERRING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM ZONING CLASSIFICATION R -2 TO ZONING CLASSIFICATION C -4, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON LYTLE ROAD. j. August 10, 1987 - Motion by Mr. McGibbeny, seconded by Mr. Ruta, that would direct the municipal solicitor to present any relevant municipal records and petition the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission to investigate the possible conflict of interest in the matter of Councilman Hoffman's vote on the Andrew rezoning request (Appin. 1768). Discussion followed concerning why this had not been brought up sooner after the action of Council at the February meeting. It was also mentioned that other members of Council may have had dealings with Mr. Andrew. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 9 7. Records of the township Solicitor and of Bethel Park Borough contained no opinion to you regarding a conflict of interest in relation to this situation. 8. John Andrew provided the following information: a. He owned the Lytle Road property. b. He purchased this property in 1973. c. He recently sold this property. d. He was successful in obtaining a C -4 zoning classification for this property in 1987. e. You have performed accounting work for him on an annual basis for approximately four years. f. In this respect, you prepare his tax returns. g- He met you through his church. h. You rent your office space from Pittsburgh Realty Incorporated, his company but this was arranged through the property owner. His company only collects the rent. i. Councilmember Ruta was his key proponent for the rezoning request. j. He has purchased carpeting from another councilmen, Mr. Pape, who operates a carpet business. k. He did an appraisal on property owned by another councilmember Bob Hatch. 1. Hatch was given a $700 bill but has never paid it. 9. You provided the following information in relation to this situation: a. The Lytle Road rezoning request initially arose soon after you first started on council. b The property was next to other commercial entities and was not suitable for single family development. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Pagc 10 c . The C -4 classification is for small office facility and is a transitional step between traditional commercial and residential. d. In 1981, when you first voted on this matter, you were not aware who owned the property. e. You started doing work for Mr. Andrew in late 1984. f. You had formed your opinion on this matter long before the vote came up. g. You do tax return work for Mr. Andrew estimated at under $1,000 per year. h. You considered not voting on the issue but saw no problem in doing so. i. Normally, five votes are needed to carry a matter before council but six votes were needed on this issue. j. Three other councilmembers had financial dealings with Mr. Andrew. k. John Andrew did not ask you to vote in any particular- manner. L. Discussion: As a councilman from Bethel Park I'urough, you are a "public official" as that term is defined under '!`c Ethics Act. 65 P.S. Section 402; 51 Pa. Code 111.1; Rider, Order 490 -R. As such, your conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. As to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act quoted above, these sections specifically provide that no public official may use public office or confidential informatiri . received through holding public office to obtain a financial gain for himself or a business with which he is associated and no public official may receive anything of value on the understanding that his official conduct will be influenced thereby. See Section -3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and (b). The term "business with which he is associated" is defined as follows: Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 11 Section 2. Definitions. "Business with which he is associated." Any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or holder of stock. 65 P.S. 1! 402 . In the instant matter, the allegation relates to whether you used public office as a borough councilman to vote in favor of a rezoning request of John L. Andrew, an individual for whom you perform accounting services. Mr. Andrew, who is president of Pittsburgh Realty, and the owner of property located at Lytle Road, submitted a rezoning request for the latter property seeking a reclassification from R -2 family residential to C -4 office commercial. The minutes of Bethel Park Council indicate your unqualified support for the Andrew zoning request. In particular, in November of 1983, you made a motion and voted in favor of scheduling a hearing on the Andrew zoning request. You made a motion to approve the rezoning request and voted in favor of that motion at a December, 1983 meeting but your motion was defeated. Thereafter, in August of 1985, you advocated the rezoning of the Lytle Road as part of the Borough Master Plan. When a motion was made to return the Master Plan to the Planning and Zoning with a direction to focus upon four areas, one of which was the Lytle Road, voted against returning said plan in October of 1985. Subsequently, when Mr. Andrew requested a hearing on his rezoning request, that request was approved unanimously and you were present at the October, 1986 meeting. In November of 1986, you made a motion and voted to table the matter when Mr. Andrew requested a new hearing. It was at that meeting that you admitted that you did accounting work for Mr. Andrew. Finally, in February, 1987 you voted in favor of a motion to remove Mr. Andrew's application from table; voted against a motion to return the application to table and finally cast the deciding vote in favor of granting the zoning request to Mr. Andrew. There is no doubt that your vote, a deciding vote, to approve the Andrews re- zoning request was a use of your public office. This action clearly resulted in a financial benefit not only for Mr. Andrews for whom you performed accounting services but also for yourself whereby you could insure a continued financial relationship. Thus, we must find that your actions constituted a violation of the aforecited provision of the State Ethics Act. Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 12 We also note, however, that we do not believe that this violation was occasioned by any intent and thus we believe it to be technical in nature. Thus, we will take no further action in relation thereto. You are advised that you must in the future either abstain from participation in such matters or seek the prospective advice of this Commission regarding your duties and responsibilities under the State Ethics Act prior to acting. Additionally, under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, although you do perform accounting work for Mr. Andrew, there is no evidence to establish that there was any understanding between you and Mr. Andrew regarding your receipt of the accounting work or anything else of value in return for your support of his rezoning request. Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that you violated Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act under these facts and circumstances. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a Bethel Park Borough Councilmenber, you are a public official subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 2. There was a technical violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act when you cast the deciding vote to approve a re- zoning request submitted to the borough by an individual with whom you had an ongoing financial relationship. 3. The evidence does not establish that you violated Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act regarding your voting on a rezoning request of Mr. John L. Andrew. 4. We will take no further action in relation to this matter; however, in all such situations in the future, you must abstain from participation or you must seek the prospective advice of this Commission prior to acting. Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section B(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 11 4O8(a). However, this Order is final and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges . pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa Code 112.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, Mr. Alan F. Hoffman Page 13 including the respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 11409(e) . By the Commission, etakaDs Joseph W. Marshall, III Chairman